Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eric Spiegelman v. Reprise Records, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., MTV Networks, and Bmi, 101 F.3d 685, 2d Cir. (1996)
Eric Spiegelman v. Reprise Records, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., MTV Networks, and Bmi, 101 F.3d 685, 2d Cir. (1996)
Eric Spiegelman v. Reprise Records, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., MTV Networks, and Bmi, 101 F.3d 685, 2d Cir. (1996)
3d 685
This cause came to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued by
appellant pro se and by counsel for appellees.
Eric Spiegelman, acting pro se, sued appellees under 17 U.S.C. 106(1), (2)
and (3) claiming that a song which appellees distribute infringes on a song
which Spiegelman wrote. After some discovery, including the deposition of
Spiegelman, defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that
Spiegelman could not meet the requirement of showing that defendants ever
had access to the song which Spiegelman claims is infringed. The district court
granted this motion on May 25, and entered judgment dismissing Spiegelman's
suit on May 31, 1995. In the following months: (1) Spiegelman moved the
district court (a) to compel discovery and (b) for permission to amend his
complaint, and (2) defendants, at the direction of the district court, filed a
motion for the award of attorney's fees. The district court granted defendants'
motion for attorney's fees, ordering Spiegelman to pay $36,718.27 on
November 30, 1995. Defendant appeals from both the May 31 judgment
granting summary judgment for defendants and the November 30 judgment
ordering him to pay attorney's fees.
Summary Judgment
4
We affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants for the
reasons stated in the district court's Opinion and Order of May 25, 1995.
Attorney's fees
5
We remand the district court's award of attorney's fees for further proceedings.
The Copyright Act allows a district court to "award a reasonable attorney's fee
to the prevailing party." 17 U.S.C. 505. However, pro se litigants in federal
court should be granted greater leniency and patience than persons who are
represented by counsel, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
attorney's fees should only rarely be awarded against litigants proceeding pro
se, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980). On the other hand, we review
awards of attorney's fees deferentially and may reverse such an award only if
the district court applied the wrong legal standard or abused its discretion. Twin
Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications Int'l. Ltd, 996 F.2d 1366, 1383 (2d
Cir.1993).
In this case it is not clear that the district court applied the correct legal
standard. Assessing attorney's fees against a pro se litigant is only appropriate
when the court finds that the plaintiff's "claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or
groundless, or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so."
Judge Cardamone having recused himself from this action, this case is decided
by two judges pursuant to Second Circuit Local Rule 0.14